Hold on tight, kids. To me, I find the OP's original question compelling towards discussion and I appreciate it. Although offering her views on the act, I think she was simply trying to learn through discussion. I also concur with her additional comment in the quote below:
Jazlyn wrote:
I think with some people saying this is a "judge free community" is very misleading. And heck, even if it was judge free, I wouldn't want that. I think having opinions and judging/criticizing others based on their actions is a great thing to express. Of course at the end of the day everyone lives their own lives and no one can control you, but as humans, we are allowed and should express judgement so that we can have the ability to make our own decisions based on our own perspective. Some people choose to voice their judgement, some don't, but we have that ability all the same. And with expressing that judgement, it may spark someone to see something from a different perspective.
I see the OP as simply asking a question within the parameters of her own perspective and her opinion and seeking other views. I hope I'm saying that correctly.
In response to the original question, as so eloquently described by SweetlyDepraved above, some individuals' kinks are the thrill of simply being a fuck toy (pardon my words). Like a life-size sex doll that can be bent into any position and used in any fashion possible. Even degrading or humiliating. It's a kink, but it's not the totality of who they are. I know of several submissives who have a penchant for it, although that is definitely not what defines them. It's a thrill. It's the same as some individuals who desire to be a pet or furry, or a slave. I even saw one submissive who desired to be a vase, and posted a lovely photo of herself on all fours, bent over and long stem flowers arranged delightfully in her . . . watering hole. But in my limited experience, that is never the total sum of what they offer - it's simply one aspect of their desires.
Many submissives may post that about themselves. It's a way of letting others know what they are into and what they wish to offer. But I'd position that is just one of their kinks and one of their characteristics.
Jazlyn wrote:
Another question to add to the forum post: According to more experienced BDSM people, if submission can be anything like you say, then how does submission exist at all?
If this makes no sense, what I mean is how can someone be something if there are no defining qualities for it? It just becomes a meaningless word that anyone can use as a title. If anything can count as submission, then what's BDSM for? There would be no difference between "vanilla" and BDSM because someone who is "vanilla" could simply just be expressing submission in their own little way.
Excellent question: We are all on a spectrum in this lifestyle and that spectrum definitely depends upon where you stand in the minute. To the left of the middle we consider those to be submissive and to the right are Dominant for lack of a better visual. Some individuals only submit in one aspect of their life (giving up minimum control) yet they are still submissive. It's a starting point for description. Others want to submit totally, in all things. They are so far from the middle they may consider themselves mentally a slave. Just like on the Dominant side, some wish to be in total control of the situation at all times, while others have limited controls in place for their dynamic. But the defining quality is much like SweetlyDeprived alluded to: what is the foundation for their desires?
Words have meaning. Not anything constitutes submission. Some individuals are simply bottoms during sex play. During the rest of their lives they maintain autonomy and control of themselves. Just like some individuals are simply Tops. They may attempt to describe themselves as "Dominant" or "submissive" and they would be using the wrong term, but it's close enough and no want really cares enough to quibble or correct them. So it may be that some of the submissive types you've noticed are not really submissive but prefer receiving and just want to be an inanimate object - they wish to be objectified. Which is fine and probably their kink. But are they necessarily submissive? It all depends upon what else makes them up and what you don't notice about them.
As to BDSM - the term itself has changed over the years to include more. It's meant to be somewhat all encompassing for the lifestyles. I've often said Vanilla is also on the spectrum of the lifestyle. Some Vanilla marriages have better dynamics and better power exchange than many "kinky" D/s arrangements. Probably in their power exchange they don't focus on the sex or the kinky shenanigans and simply organically come to the power exchange in natural terms.